KASHI RAM RANA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, on being appointed as Assistant Teacher, vide order as contained in memo No. 976 dated 25.3.1981, was posted at Middle School, Basudih, Satgama. After discharging his duty satisfactorily for number of years, the petitioner got retired on 31.1.2006 from the Middle School, Pabra. All on a sudden, the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh issued an order as contained in memo No. 427 dated 10.2.2006 whereby the petitioner was called upon to submit his show cause as to why not pension and other retiral dues be stopped as he had secured an appointment on a forged letter. On getting the said order, the petitioner submitted his explanation. When no order was passed, the petitioner preferred a writ application bearing W.P.(S) No. 4703 of 2007 for quashing the said order dated 10.2.2006 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the authority to take decision in the matter in the light of the show cause submitted by the petitioner. Pursuant to that, the District Education Establishment Committee when took up the matter found the show cause to be unsatisfactory and hence, took a decision not to give pensionary benefit to the petitioner. The said order was communicated to the petitioner by the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh vide its memo No. 1427 dated 20.7.2009 (Annexure 6) which has been sought to be quashed.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during the entire service tenure, no such allegation was levelled against the petitioner but after the retirement of the petitioner, the authority on the allegation of securing appointment on forged letter has passed an order for stopping of the pension which is illegal as the State authority does not have any power to do so, except in a case which is covered under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules where the State does have right to withhold the pension if one is found guilty of grave misconduct in a departmental or judicial proceeding. But the State authority without putting the petitioner to a departmental proceeding or a judicial proceeding came to conclusion simply on receiving allegation that the petitioner secured employment on forged document and as such, order as contained in Annexure 6 is fit to be quashed.

(3.) As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that since the appointment being secured on a forged document was itself illegal the authority does have right to withhold the pension of the petitioner as he is not legally entitled to get that.